| Summary: | This study evaluates EU policies and legislations towards indigenous peoples of the Arctic. EU’s commitment to indigenous peoples has developed since 1997, when the issue was firs inserted into the EU’s Agenda. As a result, the EU now tries to integrate the issues of indigenous peoples into all aspects of its external relations, while actively supporting implementation of the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples through the UN framework. Moreover, indigenous peoples have been designated as a thematic priority for the EIDHR, a specific EU’s instrument aimed to give financial support to projects aimed to enhance and mainstream democracy and human rights. Bearing in mind this complex framework developed by the EU and aimed to support indigenous peoples’ rights, this study analyses the gradual formulation of an EU Arctic Policy (the EU does not have an Arctic Policy yet). Indigenous peoples and related issues have been recognized as a political priority throughout all the process, and special emphasis has been accorded to the concept of free, (prior) and informed consent and the establishment of a “regular dialogue” with indigenous peoples representatives. Against this background, EU’s attitude toward Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic is perceived as untrustworthy. Indigenous peoples, Arctic states and even scholars believe the EU to be disrespectful of Indigenous peoples culture and lifestyle. Therefore, this research builds on the analysis of EU’s concrete actions already, or potentially, affecting the Arctic. As a result of this analysis, almost all EU legal competences affecting the Arctic directly, or potentially, affect Arctic Indigenous peoples as well. Furthermore, implementation of special adjustments tailored to the needs and rights of Indigenous peoples is inconsistent and poor. This thesis explores possibilities on how to increase the consistency of EU’s commitment toward Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic, and therefore suggest the establishment of an EU Permanent Forum on indigenous issues
|
|---|